Our regular tipster JP sent me an email today outlining his own take on these matters, and proposing some interesting ideas for Gates of Vienna readers:
Subject: Shape-shifting jihad- - - - - - - - -Dear Baron,
Do you or your blog’s readers think that perhaps shape-shifting jihad or culture-specific jihad is a useful way to approach the modern form of Islamic jihad?
By this I mean that Islam adapts itself to a host culture by adopting those characteristics or cultural specifics that would provide acts of jihad with a form of camouflage.
There is no suggestion here that this occurs in a conscious or planned manner. Rather it just happens for reasons as yet unclear. Where one mode or style of jihad is dominant, other forms are not necessarily excluded.
For example:
USA: Random massacres. Britain: The polite or civil jihad conducted primarily in committees, and subsequently over cups of tea, chats about cricket, etc. London July 2005 is the exception that proves the rule. France: Aux Barricades! Chaotic street fighting. Belgium: Lesser version of the above. Scandinavia: Welfare jihad. Holland: Political assassination. Germany: Bureaucratic and legal jihad. Some street fighting, but this is usually frowned upon. Italy: Chaotic. Australia: Bondi Beach jihad.
And so on. Of course, jihad is pretty much pick-’n’-mix depending on what works best, given local conditions.
Regards,
JP
6 comments:
Hmm. Islamic Chameleon, eh?
Yes, I've thought about that before, but I don't know whether it's a characteristic particularly unique to Islamic jihadists. I tend to think not. Look at the snakes in Congress, for example.
Plus, I don't think it's accurate to refer to the Ft. Hood Massacre, for instance, as a "random" massacre. I'm not sure what exactly was random about it, particularly as it relates to the larger jihad in America.
Obviously the foot-soldiers such as Hasan et al, are going to do all of the dirty work of the greater Jihad. Meanwhile organizations like CAIR work towards the mission of "empowering American Muslims"/disempowering American non-Muslims. And so forth and so on.
It's all part of a master plan. And it's best understood, I should think, from whole to part. Otherwise we're essentially trying to understand the mastery of a Rembrandt by focusing our attention on a small portion of a single masterpiece.
The Strategy is laid out in the Guide Book. Many tactics are approved.
Its more like the Western Left. They know what they are about, and they are free to use any means necessary to get there. Alinsky's Rules for Radicals could just as well be Mohammad's Rules for Muslims. Its all about acquiring power and domination through any means necessary.
jehad it is multidimensional warfare it exploits whatever weakness it finds in any given society.
4Symbols: jehad is multidimensional warfare it exploits whatever weakness it finds in any given society.
I'm with 4Symbols on this one.
Rather it just happens for reasons as yet unclear.
The reasons are quite clear. Just as Islam is purposefully decentralized―at least to some extent―it is the historically free-booting and marauding nature of jihad that we see manifesting today.
With its age old habit of weaponizing whatever political liberties or rights are available to be turned against host populations, Islam's followers use an expolitative strategy that adapts itself to the assets at hand.
USA: Relativey unfettered access to firearms.
Britain: Lingering guilt over colonial imperialism.
France: Bringing the Eurabia pact to full fruition.
Belgium: Bullying an already divided (i.e., Walloon/Flemish) nation.
Scandinavia: "The candy store with a busted lock".
Holland: One of the most enduring Liberal Western nations. Enough said.
Germany: Paralyzed by fear of persecuting a new minority.
Italy: Proximity, an extensive shoreline plus an already fragmented political landscape.
Australia: Free-wheeling society with a low degree of sexual hangups that makes it a playground for Muslim sexual predators.
It's not so much "pick-'n'-mix" as it is a consistent pattern of belligerent opportunism writ large that has, so far, not been identified widely from fear of violating Political Correctness.
As American colonial fighter, Eathan Allen, once said:
"It is bad policy to fear the resentment of an enemy".
The nearly unanimous inability for anyone, be it the media, army command, law enforcement or this nation's political administration, to identify the Fort Hood massacre as a terrorist attack is symptomatic of the free ride that Islam gets, like some societal lamprey, on the body of functional cultures.
Most disgusting of all is how vigorously almost everyone involved ignores, like with that dog that catches the car, how Islam is totally incapable of administering a productive society of any sort, much less the global caliphate it lusts after.
The wholesale degredation of living conditions and drastically reduced quality of life that would ensue in the wake of Islamic empowerment is not just a historical fact but blatantly obvious from the current conditions in every single Muslim cesspit that currently passes for a nation in the global community.
We ignore this at our own peril.
The above is quotable, and quoted.
Thank you, Engineer-Poet, for quoting me at your blog. I'll cross-post my follow-up comment here as well:
Thank you for posting a portion of my comment. To clarify about the dog and car analogy:
Were Islam to finally obtain its global caliphate, it would be much like a dog that managed to catch the car, as in "what do I do now?"
Unfortunately, Islam is more than prepared to simplify things for all of us by plunging the entire globe backwards over a millennia in time in order to satisfy a desire that Western civilization should reassume their own exceptionally low standards.
As a side note, there is an obscene convergence in how Leftist demands for "green" measures (read: de-industrialization), are driving the modern world straight towards the same retrograde status that Islam seeks to impose.
The only difference in vision being that the Muslim version of that world will most definitely not include Liberals of any sort. As is so often the case, handmaidens for history's most destructive ideologies are always among the first who are sent to the wall.
Post a Comment